DC Comics Multimedia General - A crisis of infinite fuck ups

[Quarterback Rex Grossman]

Ask any random people in the street and that's what they will tell you

A random normie would say Superman or Spider-Man. Only turbo autists know or even care about Batman's lame nerd rule about killing. "But he's so PSYCHO that he knows if he kills even one guy he'll become the ULTIMATE UNSTOPPABLE KILLER."

Going off on a tangent here, but Adam West Batman not killing people makes sense because it's a light-hearted family friend version of the character. Same with the old kid cartoon or Batman & Robin. But him having a no-killing rule in the modern era is just dumb when they keep trying to make him as edgy and dark as possible. Those debates about why doesn't he just kill the Joker if he keeps escaping ring even truer when it's taken out of the comic book soap opera world and put into something like The Batman where Bruce is the edgiest boi who ever edged. Why would that version of Batman not kill someone he knows is going to kill innocent people again?

I guess what I'm saying is Batman is a dumb character for children. He's a grown adult wearing a bat costume who fights crime with gadgets. There is no way to ever make him into a serious character unless you drop the bat angle, at which point he's just a random vigilante from any '80s action movie. Batman Forever is the only movie that really got it right: a serious take on the character without losing the cheesy comic book tone that lets goofball characters in costumes exist in a believable world.

 

[Thorpy Kamen]

A random normie would say Superman or Spider-Man. Only turbo autists know or even care about Batman's lame nerd rule about killing. "But he's so PSYCHO that he knows if he kills even one guy he'll become the ULTIMATE UNSTOPPABLE KILLER."

Going off on a tangent here, but Adam West Batman not killing people makes sense because it's a light-hearted family friend version of the character. Same with the old kid cartoon or Batman & Robin. But him having a no-killing rule in the modern era is just dumb when they keep trying to make him as edgy and dark as possible. Those debates about why doesn't he just kill the Joker if he keeps escaping ring even truer when it's taken out of the comic book soap opera world and put into something like The Batman where Bruce is the edgiest boi who ever edged. Why would that version of Batman not kill someone he knows is going to kill innocent people again?

I guess what I'm saying is Batman is a dumb character for children. He's a grown adult wearing a bat costume who fights crime with gadgets. There is no way to ever make him into a serious character unless you drop the bat angle, at which point he's just a random vigilante from any '80s action movie. Batman Forever is the only movie that really got it right: a serious take on the character without losing the cheesy comic book tone that lets goofball characters in costumes exist in a believable world.

Call me a Normie, but Batman killing seems like an open door for any writer to turn him into such a ridiculously evil and "edgy" psychopath. Normies think that if Batman kills (for example, the Joker), he'll literally become "just another murderer." I mean, look at the damn Power Rangers, blowing up a monster every episode because "they're just generic monsters." Regardless of the context, the Rangers blow up the weekly monster, and Batman will just stick to the same serial killers like the Joker, Dr. Pig, Black Mask, and other bastards who've taken dozens of lives.

I mean, the "No killing" thing might apply to thieves who can redeem themselves, but it becomes ridiculous when it comes to psychopaths who kill people en masse for sadistic fun.